Share:

Related

Comments

At the worst of the bear market, my portfolio was down about 60%, but it has come almost all the way back. I’m down only about 8% or so from its peak pre-crash paper worth. In February and March, margin investors were forced to liquidate by margin calls and mutual funds, hedge funds, and other institutional investors were forced to liquidate by redemptions, plus investors who thought the world was ending sold in a panic. Back then, you could buy good stocks for less than dirt cheap, and believe me, I did! Even as late as early June, I picked up hundreds of shares of Harley Davidson for $15, and I’m now looking at a double in that stock by year’s end. Yep, owning a piece of America is the only way to go! Sure beats working, and the taxes are a lot less, too, under our immoral Republican Tax Code that punishes wage earners and rewards stock flippers like me. Own, not owe, I say! Someday soon I’m gonna live like a Republican, too! I’m already paying Republican taxes, meaning next to none. Hey, I know it’s not fair, the system sucks, and believe me I’d change it if I could, but what the hay I’m only a cork bobbing on waves of capitalism in an ocean of freeloading enterprise.

Of course, my stockpicking is very selective. I like companies that sell to other companies, not consumers. I’ve never liked retailing or finance or other consumer-dependent stocks. I like basic resources like coal and oil, the dirtier and more evil the better (because it’s always the bastards who make the most money), and the equipment makers who supply them. However, energy-related stocks are getting a little pricey (they’ve moved up with oil prices), and I’m lightening up in that sector right now. I already own some railroad stock, and for those of you who missed the boat on that industry, it may not be too late, although I’ve already taken the best of the capital gains available in that sector. I’m currently looking at food processing, institutional food service, equipment suppliers to telecommunications, among others, as possible buys.

I think we’re due for a market pullback, because the market has come too far, too fast. The current market is expensive relative to the near-term economic prospects of underlying companies. Most of the profit improvements this year came from cost-cutting measures, not sales growth, and that’s not sustainable. Until employment improves, investor optimism for a resurgence in consumer spending is premature. Any fool should be able to figure out that consumers can’t spend money they don’t have. Because B2B spending and inventory rebuilding leads consumer recovery, I’d stick with the business-to-business stocks for now. Maybe trade in and out of them in tandem with short-term price swings to play near-term market volatility.

Of course, absolutely none of this sort of activity produces anything, creates a single job, or contributes a damn thing to GDP, which is why the Republican Tax Code rewards it so highly. After all, you don’t expect the fucking Republicans to do anything that’s rational or constructive, do you?

Yep, companies lay people off to protect profit growth and pension funds, mutual funds and other high rollers pull their money out of the mattresses and reward them.

This kind of behavior argues for more stimulus spending.

If unemployment remains high and financial industry profit continue to mount, then the political obstacles to a better stimulus bill shouldn’t be a problem.

The last stimulus bill was highly flawed. 40 percent of it was tax cuts while welcome to a lot of strapped people, could have easily been substituted with more job creating projects and we’d probably would have been better off.

Reuters is carrying a story today about how the high end of the housing market is taking an even bigger hit than little old houses and crackerbox condos for mere mortals. It’s just coming later and will take even longer to rebound. Assuming that the price of mansions is going to stay depressed long enough for our friendly assessors to take notice, it would appear that the wealthy in our fair state are going to get a break on their property taxes whether or not Timmie’s latest contrivance passes.

No pudge, I’m parodying ridiculous people like you who find evidence of Obama’s perceived failures in everything from stock market fluctuations to their own bowel movements. But then, I don’t really expect ridiculous people like you to have any sense of nuance.

@8 Yes, Obama is directly responsible for the stock market recovery, and so is Bush. Even Bush was smart enough to understand that cutting spending and refusing to bail out banks was the wrong thing to do. Even Bush threw Wingnut Wack-O-Nomics out the window because he was unwilling to put our country through another Great Depression. You are a fucking idiot. You’re a tout for the failed Hooverite policies that made the 1930 recession vastly worse. You’re a fucking public menace who should be locked up! Bush and Obama, with their bank bailouts and stimulus packages, saved the world from economic catastrophe. Anyone who says otherwise is an ignorant ass who should keep his mouth shut because he’s only making himself look like a sophomoric idiot.

Goldy’s not lying. He’s ridiculing the wingnut notion that was trumpeted a few months ago by most of our trolls that a low Dow indicated that Obama was failing. It’s just that your own self-importance makes you oblivious to satire.

Oh, and now that the ridiculous and meaningless Presidential Approval Index is at -7, Cynical has ceased his braying about it.

And on that subject, the most recent October job approval ratings on pollster.com favor Obama:

That’s funny. You accuse me of lying by attributing to me the exact opposite of what my words actually say. I guess that’s the same kinda intellectual rigor Stefan used in “proving” that Dino Rossi won the 2004 gubernatorial election.

Right wingers said Clinton’s modest tax increases back in ’93 would tank the economy.

Instead it boomed.

The righties were WRONG.

Higher taxes on those who benefited the most from right wing policies are needed to service the ballooning debt and keep the promise of this country alive. The regressivity of the tax structure at all levels of government must be remedied.

@13: Only an immature idiot like Pudge could misinterpret sarcasm. The idiot righwingnuts (like Klynical) yelled long and hard that Obama ruined the economy or the stimulus was failing becuase the stock market was down.

The whole premise is stupid – and when the market is up you don’t hear a peep out of them.

These are the same dingbats who argued last winter that climate change was false because it was getting cold.

Oh and Pudgie- grow up. calling people liars because you are too dense to get sarcasm makes you appear to be a third grader…..which I suppose is an accurate reading of your intelligence and demeanor.

CLEARLY Wall Street likes Obama’s socialist policies. Socialist? Obama is a corporate whore who’s given billions in cash directly to the banks and Wall Street. A socialist would TAX CitiGroup 80% to pay for our wars and debt. Has Obama done that? Or even said he’d do that? Nope. What DID Obama do? Take money from me (citizen) and give it directly to private corporations, mostly with no strings. NO wonder Wall Street likes Obama.

Socialist? Like their view on evolution, reality is the exact 180 degree opposite of what Republicans “believe”. I think Republicans need to buy dictionaries and start learning what words mean.

David: ummmm. Socialism is not necessarily bad for business. Especially if your company is the direct beneficiary of the socialist controls. Rad a book.

A socialist would take over a company and fire their CEO. Has Obama done that? Yes. A socialist would push a bill that creates a new government-run health insurance plan, and try to force all people into a government system that controls all health private insurance plans. Has Obama done that? Yes. A socialist would take money from me (citizen) and give it directly to … anyone else. Has Obama done that? Yes.

I am guessing that you were responding to cnr, because I said that you are oblivious to satire.

However, what you said is not true.

wow, so YOU say I didn’t get the sarcasm, that I took his words literally. But Goldy says that I didn’t take his words literally ENOUGH.

Heck, I kow that you’re ignoring the satire. Bt Goldy didn’t say that you claim. He said that you are purposely attributing to him the exact opposite of what his words say. And he’s right–you’re setting up a typical Republican straw man.

The only weapon a Republican has, apparently, is the straw man, because that’s the only arrow that is ever shot out of quiver after quiver, all across the Internet.

Of course, if you watch Fox News you will never learn that the Dow broke 10K.

But you WILL almost certainly think that several outright fabrications are true: – U.S. forces found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. – There’s clear evidence that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein worked closely with the Sept. 11 terrorists. – People in foreign countries generally either backed the U.S.-led war or were evenly split between supporting and opposing it.

No, of course not. That makes no sense. I also didn’t call the recession Bush inherited — that everyone agrees was the result of the 1999 stock market problems, regardless of the date it actually “began” — “the Clinton recession.”

Clinton presided over all of the previous eight years that led to the recession, but that didn’t make it his fault. And I see no reason to claim that this recession is Bush’s fault. (And when I’ve asked for evidence to blame Bush, more than half the time, people wind up blaming a bill that deregulated banks … which passed under Clinton.)

But if true, how does it feel to have the shoe on the other foot for a change?

Since I not only never questioned anyone’s patriotism for disagreeing, and I also criticized anyone on my side who did, the shoe is not on “the other foot” for me.

DL:

Of course, if you watch Fox News you will never learn that the Dow broke 10K.

False. You’re lying. That was reported today on Fox News. I just flipped there right now to check and in big letters on the screen on Cavuto’s show it says “DOW WATCH: 10,015.90.”

But you WILL almost certainly think that several outright fabrications are true: – U.S. forces found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

That did, in fact, happen. It’s an incomplete statement, but it’s true. It boggles the mind that people still think this is false, when it’s the opposite. For example, we found many pre-Gulf War munitions, like mustard gas and sarin gas. They were degraded and probably unusable as serious weapons, but they were WMD, and they were found in Iraq by U.S. forces.

There’s clear evidence that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein worked closely with the Sept. 11 terrorists.

False. You’re lying. That was never reported by Fox News.

People in foreign countries generally either backed the U.S.-led war or were evenly split between supporting and opposing it.

I suppose it’s possible some anchor or someone pushed that, but I doubt it; I don’t see why they would anyway, since Fox News viewers generally don’t give a damn what other countries think.

As a side note, just imagine if Bush refused to go on Meet the Press because of the partisanship on MSNBC. There rightfully would have been many cries from the left about how inappropriate that was. Yet when Obama refuses to go on Fox News Sunday because of the partisanship of Fox News Channel, that’s somehow acceptable?

Right wingers said Clinton’s modest tax increases back in ‘93 would tank the economy.

Nope you dope. But real wage growth stagnated during those Clinton Years. Puddy already posted all those links too. Find them fool! The economy didn’t take off until after the Contract with America took hold. Remember when Gingrich and company reigned in the cost of federal increases from 8% to 5% your side claimed and accused conservatives of wanting to starve children? The liberal press agreed and ran with the lies? Here read fool. Check your tctmgr and find it before moron! Well you are a moron so forgetfulness is your forte.

@18 In the 2000 – 2004 election cycle, wealthy conservative campaign donors who gave the GOP $4 billion got back $400 billion in tax breaks, a 100-to-1 return on investment that small investors can only dream about.

That $400 billion wouldn’t begin to compensate the ordinary citizens of our country for the $11 trillion of economic losses caused by Bush’s policies, but clawing it back could serve as a downpayment.

The companies that have been awarded taxpayers’ money from Congress’s bailout bill spent $77 million on lobbying and $37 million on federal campaign contributions, Center finds. The return on investment: 258,449 percent.

…In total, 161 companies approved for TARP money gave $37.5 million to federal candidates, parties and committees in the 2007-2008 election cycle, with 57 percent of that going to Democrats (post-election data is not yet available).

In 1993, after the Clinton administration had pushed through an increase in taxes on upper-income families, the very same people who have persuaded Dole to run on a tax-cut platform were very sure about what would happen. Newt Gingrich confidently predicted a severe recession. Articles in Forbes magazine urged readers to get out of the stock market to avoid the inevitable crash. The Wall Street Journal editorial page had no doubts that the tax increase would sharply increase the deficit instead of reducing it. Well here we are, three years later: The economy has created 10 million new jobs, the market is up by 1500 points, and the deficit has been cut in half. I’m not saying that Clinton’s policies led to that result–they account for only part of the good news about the deficit, and hardly any of the rest. But the point is that the supply-siders were absolutely sure that his policies would produce disaster–and indeed, if their doctrine had any truth to it, they would have.

ylb arschloch didn’t read the links. He trusts Slate. Since you are a dishonest shithead who won’t admit Puddy already covered this here’s some stuff. Search your tctmgr fool!

Here is more info for the moronic one:

From 1993 to 1995, more than 8.5 million workers lost their jobs through downsizing or the wholesale closing or merging of companies, despite the economic recovery of that period. This was the so-called “jobless recovery” of the first two years of the Clinton presidency. Fear and anxiety were widespread among American workers, particularly among older workers. This was made even worse by Clinton and the Democratic-controlled Congress’ refusal to even raise the minimum wage. In March 1994, the New York Times published a four-part series called “Staying afloat” about the struggles of full-time, low-wage workers. The Times followed up with a special report called “Job insecurity: Even in good times, it’s hard times for workers,” in July 1995, which concluded that “many problems that workers faced only in bad times have become fixtures in all times: Some wages are still falling, people must be ready to work twelve-hour shifts and six days a week, and no job is for keeps.” Newsweek magazine summed up the feelings of the time with its cover story in February 1996, “Corporate killers: Wall Street loves layoffs. But the public is scared as hell.”

“The economy boomed in the late nineties, with unemployment reaching historic lows. Wages, after years of lagging behind economic growth, finally began to rise. However, a majority of the twenty-two million jobs created during the Clinton years paid less than $7 an hour. The reality was that Clinton played his role in helping to create a low-wage, low-benefit economy. The number of working poor increased under his watch. According to a 1999 report compiled in part by the National League of Cities and the National School Boards Association, “The number of children in working poor families leaped by one-third from 1989 to 1997, despite a booming economy and a twenty-five-year low in the nation’s unemployment rate.””

“While it is true that the quality of new jobs has improved markedly since 1992, last year [1995] most (55%) of the new jobs paid less than the national average wage ($29,420), according to a recent New York Times study. In addition, while the Bureau of Labor Statistics list of the ten fastest-growing occupations for the next decade includes some high-paying jobs, such as registered nurses and systems analysts, it also includes such typically low-paid positions as cashiers, janitors and cleaners, retail sales persons, waiters and waitresses, and guards. Nor has the Clinton jobs machine brought layoffs to a halt. A New York Times poll, conducted for its series “The Downsizing of America,” found that since 1980 one third of U.S. households have had a family member lose a job. In the first half of 1996 another 200,000 workers lost their jobs to downsizing, and only 15% of those laid off ever get their old job back. Two-thirds of those who find other work end up in jobs that pay less than their old ones.”

From 1993 to 1995, more than 8.5 million workers lost their jobs through downsizing or the wholesale closing or merging of companies, despite the economic recovery of that period.

While it is true that the quality of new jobs has improved markedly since 1992, last year [1995] most (55%) of the new jobs paid less than the national average wage ($29,420), according to a recent New York Times study.

However, a majority of the twenty-two million jobs created during the Clinton years paid less than $7 an hour. The reality was that Clinton played his role in helping to create a low-wage, low-benefit economy.

Once again the ylb arschloch talks out of his “pie hole”, his arschloch…

Clinton raised taxes, jobs were lost. ylb arschloch will be searching high and low trying to dispute the facts… facts brought many times by Puddy to HA. Yet the disingenuous ASS ylb arschloch won’t show the original links Puddy placed here and since Puddy can find the original material Puddy doesn’t need to search HA for the time and date stamps!

Fool, check with Another TJ. He suggested using GAAP to nail Bush and his FY09 budget. Well if ATJ wanna use GAAP then he already proved Clinton didn’t leave a balanced budget. Since Puddy Remembers while you have deranged mental libtardo disease, Puddy is here to help! Even Don Joe chimed in about it…

Once again, take it up with Another TJ and Don Joe. They proposed GAAP ANAL(you)lysis and provided those figures from their use. Puddy suggests you take it up with them because they claimed it was the correct method to use.

And a big UP YOURS ya moron. You don’t even remember the thread even though you claim to have all the PuddyMissives.

Touché Turdball – where are your “supporters” for your moronic rants Mr Monomaniacal? You are on your own little island with no support staph.

Puddy You are a hopeless idiot. For so long, I had thought, being an optimist, that you were open to reason. Alas, I now know, you drink two pitchers of Kool-Aid before you even brush your teeth in the morning. You used to be entertaining here. You are not anymore. Any chance you might just go away and frequent the wingnut sites where you belong? Your friend, proud leftist

I respect them but you’ve used factcheck in the past and they are saying that Clinton balanced the budget.

You have no legs to stand on. Bill Clinton left the country in immeasurably better shape than that ugly chimpanzee you voted for twice despite a modest tax increase on the rich which right wingers said would damage the economy. It did nothing but!

If you truly believe that Clinton damaged the economy with his small tax increase on the rich then you also have to believe Ronald Reagan did the same in the 6 years he signed laws that rose taxes on mostly the middle class.

Ask your good friends Don Joe and Another TJ… They made the assertions for GAAP Anal(ylb)lysis to attack GWB for the FY09 Budget. Too bad your memory is poor too. Butt, we all knew that from long ago on HA. Proves bad memories are a libtardic condition! So it’s only fair to use GAAP for Clinton too. When you accept the GAAP proffered by Another TJ and Don Joe… Clinton DID NOT BALANCE the BUDGET.

Those are your HA Libtardo “economists”. You pissing in the wind – like always.

Here’s the chart, puddinghead. Expressed as % of GDP. As you can see, deficit spending peaked in World War 2. A negative (-) number is a budget surplus.

This chart and table shows surpluses for 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001. The federal fiscal year runs October 1 to September 30, so Clinton’s final budget was FY2001 (i.e., Oct. 1, 2000 to Sept. 30, 2001).

Bush’s first budget was FY2002. Note the federal budget immediately went from a surplus of 1.27% of GDP in FY2001 to a deficit of 1.52% of GDP in FY2002 and a deficit of 3.47% of GDP in FY2003 — a startling reversal of direction amounting to 4.7% of GDP in only two years.

Facts don’t lie, puddinghead. Your assertion that Bush didn’t inherit a budget surplus from Clinton is FALSE. And we all know how Bush squandered that surplus — on tax cuts for the rich that produced ZERO net new jobs during the course of his administration. The only president of the last 100 years with a worse job-creation record is Hoover. So much for “trickle down” economics — even David Stockman, architect of Reagan’s tax cuts, called the economic policies pursued by Reagan and Bush “voodoo economics.”

I respect them but you’ve used factcheck in the past and they are saying that Clinton balanced the budget.

Irrelevant. Don Joe and Another TJ didn’t use Fact Check. Another great attempt at your standard diversionary tactics REJECTED.

You have no legs to stand on.

Puddy didn’t build the stool fool. Another TJ and Don Joe did.

If you truly believe that Clinton damaged the economy with his small tax increase on the rich

One last time. You are so exasperating ylb arschloch. Puddy’s patience can only last so long even though Puddy accounts for your brick headedness.

From 1993 to 1995, more than 8.5 million workers lost their jobs through downsizing or the wholesale closing or merging of companies, despite the economic recovery of that period.

How many more times does Puddy need to tell ylb arschloch the same thing over and over and over?

Take off your belt and drop your skirt. Now turn around, peel down the lacey panties, spread your cheeks, wipe away the dingleberries and allow your third “eye” to read the screen. There. Do you finally get it yet?

Puddy Reality isn’t that bad a place. Come on, come to where facts matter. It will, of course, cause your head to spin for a little bit as you adjust to the real world, but you’ll get used to it. At least, I hope you will. No more Rush, no more Beck, no more Fox”news”. Come to the light, Puddy, c’mon.

BTW, Rabbit, Congrats. Today, you should pat your own bunny back for kicking ass in the stock market and for kicking Puddy’s sorry ass (not that he ever recognizes when his ass has been handed to him).

76 – Patience???? Fuck you and you dragging ATJ and Don Joe into this.

YOU SAID Clinton didn’t leave Bush a balanced budget. Fuck yes he did if you count social security. If you count social security he ran surpluses for 4 straight years!

Your Chimp NEVER did that even with Social Security.

Factcheck.org which you bragged about using countless times said so! What? You don’t like Factcheck any more now that it contradicts your bullshit?

I guess facts hurt the braindead right wing sea mucilage that passes for your brain.

Clinton’s tax small tax increase on the rich was NOT responsible for anyone losing a job. Clinton raised taxes to stave off deficits which Rubin said was spooking the bond markets. Greedhead corporations were responsible for job losses and paying crappy wages. Sending jobs to maquiladoras on the Mexican border was all the rage back then. It was going on way before Clinton.

Puddy You consistently cite links that don’t support your positions. You consistently fail to cite actual evidence to support your positions. You consistently spew whatever the wingnut talking points of the day might be, no matter how ridiculous they might be. You don’t think independently. Sorry. You are a tool. I suspect you are a decent person, but you are a political fool. So, as you say, “Nuff SAID Sucka!” That sounds like reasonable political discourse, doesn’t it?

The only problem with this analysis is that it is historically inaccurate. Reagan may have resisted calls for tax increases, but he ultimately supported them. In 1982 alone, he signed into law not one but two major tax increases. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year and the Highway Revenue Act raised the gasoline tax by another $3.3 billion.

According to a recent Treasury Department study, TEFRA alone raised taxes by almost 1 percent of the gross domestic product, making it the largest peacetime tax increase in American history. An increase of similar magnitude today would raise more than $100 billion per year.

In 1983, Reagan signed legislation raising the Social Security tax rate. This is a tax increase that lives with us still, since it initiated automatic increases in the taxable wage base. As a consequence, those with moderately high earnings see their payroll taxes rise every single year.

In 1984, Reagan signed another big tax increase in the Deficit Reduction Act. This raised taxes by $18 billion per year or 0.4 percent of GDP. A similar-sized tax increase today would be about $44 billion.

The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 raised taxes yet again. Even the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which was designed to be revenue-neutral, contained a net tax increase in its first 2 years. And the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 raised taxes still more.

I’m kind of surprised puddy didn’t try the unified budget argument. It’s not a valid argument, but at least he’d look like he knows a little. But it appears puddy has no clue what the unified budget is, and what its implications are.

With all the shit you spew, it’s like a large revolving fund. Just wait a few weeks and you’ll repeat your self. Wait another few weeks and you’ll do it again. And since many of your arguments are at a deficit, reading them is like an interest cost. It becomes very expensive… like someone raiding the trust funds.

In addition, neither of these figures counts the financial deterioration in Social Security or Medicare. Including these retirement programs in the bottom line, as proposed by a board that oversees accounting methods used by the federal government, would show the government running annual deficits of trillions of dollars.”

This is why you are a dumb as a rock brick wearing lace panties and skirts. Are those over the calf boots on again tonight?

BTW there is more where this came from. Butt as always you are the lowest on the HA Libtardo food chain.

Other readers have noted a USA Today story stating that, under an alternative type of accounting, the final four years of the Clinton administration taken together would have shown a deficit. This is based on an annual document called the “Financial Report of the U.S. Government,” which reports what the governments books would look like if kept on an accrual basis like those of most corporations, rather than the cash basis that the government has always used. The principal difference is that under accrual accounting the government would book immediately the costs of promises made to pay future benefits to government workers and Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries. But even under accrual accounting, the annual reports showed surpluses of $69.2 billion in fiscal 1998, $76.9 billion in fiscal 1999, and $46 billion for fiscal year 2000. So even if the government had been using that form of accounting the deficit would have been erased for those three years.

What Fact Check says and what this says especially when you add the figures, the off budget items don’t add up. Start around page 30 arschloch. Fact Check is off. And when you add up the numbers it’s -$394 Billion.

That’s exactly what puddy is doing. He wants to change the accounting rules in order to create fictional facts to support his predetermined conclusion. Sorry, puddy, you don’t get to do that.

That’s like watching a football game on TV where your team is losing. So you decide the referees’ calls are all wrong because the rules should be different from what they are, and then you convince yourself in your own mind that your team is actually winning, notwithstanding what the scoreboard says.

Well, you’re entitled to that opinion, puddy, but opinions are like assholes: Everybody’s got one.

For purposes of this public discourse, you do not get to change the accounting rules in order to change the numbers. You don’t have authority to do that. All you’re doing here is spewing your personal opinion that the rules should be different from what they are. Remember what I said about assholes?

Oh, and by the way, the alternative accounting method cited in the USA Today article was a gimmick devised by a Republican Congress for partisan purposes, and a very dishonest gimmick at that, for the reasons pointed out in comment #98 above. And by trying to peddle that crap, you’re just as dishonest as the very partisan Republican congress critters who dreamed it up.

@107 You don’t need to argue with puddy anymore about this. He’s caught and his ass is kicked. He’ll continue yowling all the way to the center of the earth in his plunge into the pit of Hell, but it’s merely yowling, as a coyote bays at the moon. Ignore it, it’s only noise, and it’ll be terminated soon enough. Now that puddy has been definitively proven to be an empty-suited liar it’s safe to ignore him.

The funny thing is that if the shoe was on the other foot and say Ronald Raygun balanced the budget (like for years and years he said he would), Stupes would be crowing about CBO saying Raygun ran a surplus.

Roger I’ve seen it all. Benefits of age I guess. I’ve even seen right wingers claim that the Government should have a capital budget and that by itself would make the deficits run up by Republicans go away.

There’s nothing right wingers will not do, no lie they will not tell, no goalpost they will not move to hide their greed, incompetence and corruption.

The funny thing is that if the shoe was on the other foot and say Ronald Raygun balanced the budget (like for years and years he said he would), Stupes would be crowing about CBO saying Raygun ran a surplus.

Not if the real data said something else fool.

When Another TJ and Don Joe came back the GAAP discussion on GWB for FY09, Puddy immediately said okay Puddy will use the same criteria on Clinton’s years. IF you would honestly use that tctmgr and the database you so carefully created and bragged you’d find the original conversation. Butt being the arschloch you are ylb arschloch,

Hehehehehehe. Stupes keeps bringing up ATJ and Don Joe. Why don’t you bring up Sue? How about Hannah? Any other legs you want to hide behind?

I bring up Factcheck like you have in the past and they say you’re full of shit.

That aside, the original claim was that right wingers said Clinton’s tax hike would be bad for the economy. Economic numbers said otherwise fool. The numbers don’t lie. Your precious rich people and corporations did very well and the middle class got a breather from the Bush I recession.

The rich could afford the tax hike then and they will afford it just fine when the Dumbya cuts expire. We’ll need the money – there’s a shit load of right wing idiocy to correct.

No politician has any lasting effect on the stock market. Sure, some politico could do something goofy that would affect the market for a couple of weeks, at most, but politicians have no lasting effect. to say Obama did this or Bush did that is ludicrous and shows a lack of knowledge of markets.

One of the first things the Republicans do is try to change the accounting rules in their favor. When Reagan took office after blasting Carter for the high inflation rate, the first thing his administration did was change the way they calculate the cost of living numbers (ensuring that future calculations would be considerably less than if the old rule was followed). When G.W. Bush took office he tried to do the same thing, arguing that if the same PC was worth less at the end of the year than it was at the start, then that should be factored into the cost of living (ignoring technological obsolescence in the process). That didn’t fly, but he was able to make an even bigger jump, by factoring out rising food and fuel costs as being too “variable” to be included in the figures (as if food, fuel oil, and gasoline weren’t part of the “cost of living”). At the time we knew darn well that the published rate of inflation was WELL BELOW the actual rate – our grocery bills, gas prices, and housing costs were doubling, but the Bush administration continued to insist that the rate of inflation was well below 4%.

And then the final economic dishonesty – refusing to count the cost of the Iraq and Afganistan wars, by making them off-budget. Of course, Obama promptly added them back into the budget process, but expect Pudge and Cynical to not make that distinction when they argue that budgets under Obama are substantially bigger than they were under Bush.

Arguing with Republicans over accounting issues reminds me of the old Abbot and Costello routine, where they confuse the landlord to the point he ends up giving them money for the rent. They will keep playing with smoke and mirrors trying to convince you that 2 + 4 = 1, if it suits their purpose.

PI @ 119: While the impact of a President on the stock market is indeed usually overstated, the inverse is also not true – a President can indeed have a significant impact on the stock market. The problem is, the impact he/she has usually is very long term, and thus subject to lots of arguments over who gets the credit.

G.W. Bush is an example of someone having a negative affect on the stock market. His hands-off policies with respect to Wall Street and banking allowed dangerous practices in the mortgage industry to flourish, eventually resulting in a financial panic and bringing the economy of the U.S. (and much of the world) dangerously close to a depression. It even appears (to me) that the lack of confidence in the Bush administration to handle the crisis might have aggravated the continued stock market slide through the remainder of his Presidency.

On the positive side, a President who pays attention to the fundamentals of business and government, and institutes sound long-term policies, can have a long-term benefit to the stock market. For example, the freeing of the internet for public use during the early years of the Clinton administration helped fuel the big economic expansion of the late 1990’s.

Back in the day Forbes magazine opined that Clinton’s modest tax hike on the rich would crash the stock market.

The opposite happened.

Right wingers will say anything to get their way. After years of lying about anything not 100 percent in line with their interests and leaving the country worse off than how they found it why should anyone trust the right wing to govern this country?

You can use the CBO numbers or you can use the overall debt numbers that include SS. Either way, Clinton did so much better than Bush41 or Bush43 – their debt skyrockets even more if you use the “Puddy” method.

so what….Clinton was much more fiscally responsible than either Bush. Period.

Republicans have increased the debt more than democrats in the last 20 years. It started with Reagan breaking the bank and it went on through both Bush spenders.

Clinton was the only one who slowed down the spending and increased the incoming money (while still growing the economy). On the other hand, Puddy’s hero Bush created the largest budget deficits in history and revered the Clinton trends, while still managing to ruin the economy.

Bottom line, you can’t trust republicans with our money. they will give it awy to the rich, to the coporations and they will waste it weapons systems that never worked (Star wars) or on wars that were unnecessary.

What I meant is that commentaters often overstate on both ends of the political spectrum the enfluence of a President on the stock market.

A President is not necessarily responsible for the rise or fall of the stock market as a whole, as he/she has no direct impact on the market. The President’s impact on the stock market is more indirect, with respect to legislative, economic, regulatory, foreign policy, and trade policies, as well as regulatory enforcement as a whole. This can create a fertile ground, a level playing field for domestic companies to compete with one another, which can result in a long-term gain in the stock market. It’s basic good government. But you usually can’t measure success of this type in one, two, or even four years. You probably need to get well into the second term of a Presidential administration for this to be fairly evaluated. Likewise, the failure of good government can result in infertile ground for good business, or a boom-and-crash scenario due to regulatory inaction in an over-heated market. Again, it may take some time to see the eventual results of actions.

And, of course, outside events can enfluence the markets more than any Presidential influence. Foreign wars interrupting supplies of crucial materials, famine due to drought, pestulance or disease, plague closing borders to trade, asteroids hitting earth, etc. Remember that snow storms have had more to do with mayors of major cities losing re-election than almost anything else.

Are you two as stupid as Roger Feral Dumb Bunny and ylb arschloch? Tell us… R U That Stupid…

Puddy didn’t change or suggest any rules changes boyz… Don Joe and Another TJ did. They claimed FY 09 spending by and approved by Obama was for FY 09 and it’s Bush’s deficits because THEY suggested using GAAP against Bush. Well Puddy said OK if that’s the game were gonna play then you have to be consistent and use GAAP against Clinton and low and behold he didn’t balance the budget per GAAP.

SO IF YOU HAVE ISSUES WITH THE USE OF GAAP BRING IT UP WITH DON JOE AND ANOTHER TJ THE LEFT-WING LIBTARDO ECONOMISTS OF HA.

Don’t you libtards remember anything on this blog OLDER THAN 24 HOURS?

By the way, I am surprised that the DJIA held above 10,000 for a second day. I expected profit-taking to cause at least a partial retreat below the 10,000 level. Maybe tomorrow.

But it is humorous to recall the wingnuts here who were trying to scare everyone into thinking that an Obama election would cause investors to flee the stock market in droves, wiping out everyone’s 401(k) plan. It sure hasn’t turned out that way. It was just another scare tactic by a desperate party trying to hang onto power by their fingernails.

MEANWHILE … DOW 10,000 was yesterday. With unemployment heading towards 10 percent, foreclosures in record territory, and many banks getting whacked by the commercial real estate and consumer credit markets, I wouldn’t read too much into that number.

I would. Optimism is running amok. It’s time to sell stocks, take profits, and relieve the suckers of the cash they stuffed in mattresses. Then, when the pendulum swings too far in the other direction, which — trust me — it will, I’ll buy the same stocks back for half of what I sold them for and the cycle of taking money from dopes and giving it to myself will begin anew. Sure beats working for a living, and the tax rates are lower, too!

Please Donate

I appreciate feeling appreciated. Also, money.

Currency:

Amount:

Can’t Bring Yourself to Type the Word “Ass”?

Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!

Search HA

Follow Goldy

HA Commenting Policy

It may be hard to believe from the vile nature of the threads, but yes, we have a commenting policy. Comments containing libel, copyright violations, spam, blatant sock puppetry, and deliberate off-topic trolling are all strictly prohibited, and may be deleted on an entirely arbitrary, sporadic, and selective basis. And repeat offenders may be banned! This is my blog. Life isn’t fair.